Final vote on Tarr's contract Monday

PARIS — Two weeks after defeating a motion not to renew Town Manager Phil Tarr's contract, the board of selectmen plan to take a final vote on the matter during Monday's board meeting.

The board voted 3-1 to forward a letter informing Tarr of its intention not to renew his contract to an attorney for review before putting the issue on Monday's agenda. Selectman Ryan Lorrain voted against the motion.

Unless the selectmen give Tarr a six-month written notice that they will not renew, Tarr's contract will automatically be extended to two years when it expires at the end of December. June 30 is the latest the notice can be given.

On Tuesday, Board Chairman Bob Kirchherr expressed concern that there could be serious legal consequences if the board took action on the contract.

His motion to contact a lawyer and clarify the issue failed in a 2-2 vote – Lorrain and Kilgore voted against the motion.

According to Kirchherr, there are two conflicting interpretations of Tarr's contract –  one favoring the board's position and the other favoring Tarr's.

"If the other interpretation is sustained, we're going to court," said Kirchherr. "I want us to understand the consequences of our actions."

Kirchherr's worry surrounds section two of Tarr's contract, which deals with its duration and the automatic two-year extension.

During the meeting, Kirchherr implied that the board had failed to meet its obligation to jointly establish goals and objectives with the town manager, required under section four of Tarr's contract.

"As far as I can tell, [the board] has not provided any annual goals, it has not evaluated him based on those goals," said Kirchherr.

The automatic extension of Tarr's contract outlined in section two of Tarr's contract is subject to the provisions of section four.

Tarr told the board that he believed his evaluation was incomplete and arbitrary.

He said that two selectmen had declined to fill out the evaluation form and their input was replaced with arbitrary, mediocre scores.

Gerald Kilgore and Sam Elliot, the two newly-elected selectmen, opposed seeking the advice of a lawyer and wanted to move the issue forward.

Elliot stated that he believed there was nothing a lawyer could tell the board.

If the issue went to court, he argued, the court would decide which interpretation of the contract to follow.

According to his reading of the contract, Elliot said the board was fully within its rights not to renew the contract.

"If we simply don't renew his contract, we're not terminating him, we're not firing him," said Elliot.

"He's done his work for us, we've paid him. We're even."

Kilgore also opposed seeking legal advice, declaring that the previous board should have concluded the contract business months ago.

Kilgore was expecting the board to make a decision on the matter at Tuesday's meeting –  he repeatedly stated he wanted Monday's vote to be final.

He took issue with the fact that the new selectmen will need to make the decision.

"I hate to be used as a scapegoat," Kilgore said, "but I think that's what we're being used as."

Lorrain made a motion to simply drop the matter and allow the contract to renew.

His motion was defeated 3-1 by the other selectmen, but Tarr agreed with the premise.

He said that the conversation during the meeting implied that the board wanted to see him go.

"What's wrong with putting our heads together and as Ryan said, move on, try to do better ... instead of having such a negative conversation like this?" Tarr asked.